A government that becomes too efficient will cause problems. In this case, they infractions are detected too efficiently. Catching major infringers is good, but when every slight infraction is punished, citizens will become unhappy.
We want government to have constant hurdles to overcome, because we have expectations regarding the persistence of overseers. Even though we may not be able to have the default anonymity we enjoyed pre-21st century, we can still regulate government to have stumbling blocks so that it doesn't become an efficient Orwellian machine.
Because dwm is customized through editing its source code, it's pointless to make binary packages of it. This keeps its userbase small and elitist. No novices asking stupid questions.
There is a very logical reason why random stock selection will beat a market-cap-weighted index over time.
Consider this: 1. Most studies with random stock selection create an equally-weighted portfolio. 2. Market benchmark indices such as the S&P 500 or Wilshire 5000 are market-cap weighted. 3. An equally-weighted port will have a lower average market-cap than the benchmark. 4. Historically there has been a small-cap premium, giving small cap stocks greater return, at the cost of greater risk. 5. Hence, the chimpanzees' portfolios will be outperforming due to the small cap premium, not due to stock selection skills.
Lastly, the chimpanzees have no costs associated with the picks. Actual trading incurs costs, and not incurring them gives you an edge.
I'm not sure why it's even the government's obligation to "close the deal" (from TFA) and help a victim clean their food supply of contaminants. If the victim felt they "have more important things to worry about" than prevent infection and disease, then felt they "have more important things to worry about" than routinely verify the quality of their food supply, AND THEN when told that their food supply was contaminated they "have more important things to worry about" than fix it themselves and pay out of pocket... maybe the government has "more important things to worry about", too.
I'm not saying what level of intervention is appropriate, but your argument is flawed.
I wouldn't be at all surprised that if in 10 years we'll have some people playing the same Minecraft worlds as well. It would even be more interesting, since your "history" would be remembered as you moved from camp to camp.
I purported no such thing. I merely said the claim of safety was unsubstantiated.
Furthermore, there are many factors that a consumer takes into mind when purchasing a car, safety only being one of them. Also, using your logic, Verizon couldn't be the largest mobile operator in the US without provide quality, price-efficient service.
Because the reason for all of these "unintended acceleration" accidents is some moron who think's he's stepping on the brakes when in fact he's stepping on the gas.
From the summary:
The move came after a fiery 2009 Lexus crash after a floor mat was improperly installed and may have trapped the accelerator pedal...
I think it's simpler to argue "How about just hit the brakes?" Why should we have more than one "reduce velocity" approach? The end goal is the same. In a crisis situation you shouldn't need to differentiate as to what approach to take. Imagine being at highway speeds and passing someone -- you're already at in a riskier-than-normal scenario, and milliseconds count.
I was being saddened by reading so many posts oblivious to the truths you just wrote about, and was just about to have to write the same things you just did (though probably not as well) when I came across yours. Thanks for doing a good summary.
In a crisis situation you aren't going to remember "I shouldn't be pulling the key out." Good safety systems require little if any cognitive input in emergencies.
Zimmerman claims to have been attacked by Martin from behind, while walking back to his car, and that's consistent with physical evidence. McNeil seems to have provoked a confrontation
I'm not sure what from the article would even hint that McNeil provoked the confrontation. Epp was in McNeil's son's backyard, ran towards McNeil, and had a knife in his pocket after threatening McNeil's son with the knife.
Thanks for the clarification for others. When interviewing others, I was specifically instructed by HR to avoid asking about age (circumspectly as well), due to the liability exposure.
Good point about the legal issues that can arise for employers. Some people have their birth year listed on Facebook. Asking for access to their Facebook account could divulge this information and would, in effect, be the equivalent of asking someone's age, which is strictly prohibited.
To be fair, it's not a "truly free market" that requires perfect knowledge, but closer to an efficient market requirement (strict form).
I've been cultivating the idea that it's not "free markets" that we need now as much as "competitive markets". Free markets seem good for personal freedom, and can lead to competitive markets. Competitive markets, on the other hand, are what drive an economy to grow. In the US, we seem to have a good amount of "free markets", and need to focus more on the "competitive" aspects.
In terms of what's best for an individual country, we want to pursue institutions that that strengthen "free" or "competitive". Arguments that are against regulations because they are "anti-free" need to also take into account the competition-advocating parts.
Thanks for the link and information; it's good to know that they're doing throttling in a more intelligent manner. You originally said that Comcast's throttling caused them to "get their hand slapped". Were you trying to get across that this "hand slapping" was done during the TCP RST injection era, or during the QoS modification era?
You don't have to trust the client-side hashing function, as ordinarily you're not expecting it to be implemented on top of ordinary security. It's simply a bonus level of security a site can provide, even in the case of SSL transport, in case the receiver is compromised. In other words, it's possible that one component of the authentication process that handles the client-side-generated string (either a hash or cleartext password) is compromised, but not the authentication prompter itself. In this sort of case, there are clear benefits to client-side hashing.
I should note that I'm not limiting my discussion to webpage-style authentication. If the protocol enforces hashing on the client-side before sending, you don't have to worry about trusting the client-side or javascript being disabled.
What you say is true, but one benefit of doing an MD5 before it's sent is that one can't infer other passwords from a MD5 hash. A person might use passwords that follow a similar pattern that can be deduced by looking at cleartext, but not from hashes. For example, passwords a person might use could be "mypassword@slashdot", and "mypassword@sourceforge", one could probably guess their Facebook password.
Added salt helps even further.
The conclusion is that the authenticator should never receive the client's plaintext password in any form; it should always be one-way transformed before it leaves the client.
Are there automatic safety mechanisms that could be designed to limit damage? Just using my imagination, but a model could be designed to automatically halt the propeller (or do something else) when too close to the ground unless the plane was specifically in takeoff or landing mode.
Slashdot Mirror
A government that becomes too efficient will cause problems. In this case, they infractions are detected too efficiently. Catching major infringers is good, but when every slight infraction is punished, citizens will become unhappy.
We want government to have constant hurdles to overcome, because we have expectations regarding the persistence of overseers. Even though we may not be able to have the default anonymity we enjoyed pre-21st century, we can still regulate government to have stumbling blocks so that it doesn't become an efficient Orwellian machine.
Actually, it's popular enough that there are about a dozen or so spin-offs or ports of dwm.
http://dwm.suckless.org/patches/
I can guarantee such a mentality exists.
From http://dwm.suckless.org/
There is a very logical reason why random stock selection will beat a market-cap-weighted index over time.
Consider this:
1. Most studies with random stock selection create an equally-weighted portfolio.
2. Market benchmark indices such as the S&P 500 or Wilshire 5000 are market-cap weighted.
3. An equally-weighted port will have a lower average market-cap than the benchmark.
4. Historically there has been a small-cap premium, giving small cap stocks greater return, at the cost of greater risk.
5. Hence, the chimpanzees' portfolios will be outperforming due to the small cap premium, not due to stock selection skills.
Lastly, the chimpanzees have no costs associated with the picks. Actual trading incurs costs, and not incurring them gives you an edge.
Thank you for pointing me to HTTPS Finder. It definitely fits a need.
I'm not saying what level of intervention is appropriate, but your argument is flawed.
I wouldn't be at all surprised that if in 10 years we'll have some people playing the same Minecraft worlds as well. It would even be more interesting, since your "history" would be remembered as you moved from camp to camp.
Considering these folks are attempting to be "so progressive", it sounds like there is little chance they would vote Republican.
There's a button you can hit on the top-right of new tab pages that toggles the setting you found.
I purported no such thing. I merely said the claim of safety was unsubstantiated.
Furthermore, there are many factors that a consumer takes into mind when purchasing a car, safety only being one of them. Also, using your logic, Verizon couldn't be the largest mobile operator in the US without provide quality, price-efficient service.
From the summary:
I think it's simpler to argue "How about just hit the brakes?" Why should we have more than one "reduce velocity" approach? The end goal is the same. In a crisis situation you shouldn't need to differentiate as to what approach to take. Imagine being at highway speeds and passing someone -- you're already at in a riskier-than-normal scenario, and milliseconds count.
I was being saddened by reading so many posts oblivious to the truths you just wrote about, and was just about to have to write the same things you just did (though probably not as well) when I came across yours. Thanks for doing a good summary.
In a crisis situation you aren't going to remember "I shouldn't be pulling the key out." Good safety systems require little if any cognitive input in emergencies.
Your statement that the car was safe is unsubstantiated. Without enough proper data points the claim simply cannot be made.
I'm not sure what from the article would even hint that McNeil provoked the confrontation. Epp was in McNeil's son's backyard, ran towards McNeil, and had a knife in his pocket after threatening McNeil's son with the knife.
Thanks for the clarification for others. When interviewing others, I was specifically instructed by HR to avoid asking about age (circumspectly as well), due to the liability exposure.
Good point about the legal issues that can arise for employers. Some people have their birth year listed on Facebook. Asking for access to their Facebook account could divulge this information and would, in effect, be the equivalent of asking someone's age, which is strictly prohibited.
To be fair, it's not a "truly free market" that requires perfect knowledge, but closer to an efficient market requirement (strict form).
I've been cultivating the idea that it's not "free markets" that we need now as much as "competitive markets". Free markets seem good for personal freedom, and can lead to competitive markets. Competitive markets, on the other hand, are what drive an economy to grow. In the US, we seem to have a good amount of "free markets", and need to focus more on the "competitive" aspects.
In terms of what's best for an individual country, we want to pursue institutions that that strengthen "free" or "competitive". Arguments that are against regulations because they are "anti-free" need to also take into account the competition-advocating parts.
Thanks for the link and information; it's good to know that they're doing throttling in a more intelligent manner. You originally said that Comcast's throttling caused them to "get their hand slapped". Were you trying to get across that this "hand slapping" was done during the TCP RST injection era, or during the QoS modification era?
I was under the impression they were injecting TCP RST packets, not throttling. Big difference.
UN resolutions made clear the onus was on Iraq to prove they got rid of their weapons.
You don't have to trust the client-side hashing function, as ordinarily you're not expecting it to be implemented on top of ordinary security. It's simply a bonus level of security a site can provide, even in the case of SSL transport, in case the receiver is compromised. In other words, it's possible that one component of the authentication process that handles the client-side-generated string (either a hash or cleartext password) is compromised, but not the authentication prompter itself. In this sort of case, there are clear benefits to client-side hashing.
I should note that I'm not limiting my discussion to webpage-style authentication. If the protocol enforces hashing on the client-side before sending, you don't have to worry about trusting the client-side or javascript being disabled.
What you say is true, but one benefit of doing an MD5 before it's sent is that one can't infer other passwords from a MD5 hash. A person might use passwords that follow a similar pattern that can be deduced by looking at cleartext, but not from hashes. For example, passwords a person might use could be "mypassword@slashdot", and "mypassword@sourceforge", one could probably guess their Facebook password.
Added salt helps even further.
The conclusion is that the authenticator should never receive the client's plaintext password in any form; it should always be one-way transformed before it leaves the client.
Are there automatic safety mechanisms that could be designed to limit damage? Just using my imagination, but a model could be designed to automatically halt the propeller (or do something else) when too close to the ground unless the plane was specifically in takeoff or landing mode.